Hhhhmmmmmm The numbers seem a little too high to me....
Could the AP be over doing it?
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead_7[/url]

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Hhhhmmmmmm The numbers seem a little too high to me....
Could the AP be over doing it?
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead_7[/url]

View Quote

Hmmmmm...
The numbers seem "too high?"
Would it be better if only 100 were killed?
Would it be better if only 1,000 were killed?
What makes 3,240 "too high?"
Would it be ok if 10,000 were killed?
Would it be ok if 20,000 were killed?
Does the number even matter? What if we just nuked the entire place?
Secondly, why does that number seem a little high to you? Have you seen other reports? What gave you the impression that the death toll would be lower?
Thanks for helping me understand your logic/reasoning.

Ummm...Are you serious, or was that an attempt at a bad joke? I guess some of us are more than willing to "pay the ultimate price" just as long as someone else is picking up the tab. I'm sure those dead people are glad we liberated them. [rolleyes]

They prolly counted civilians who were at military targets too. That's close to what we lost at WTC isn't it???
Not too damn bad for taking a country the size of Iraq. I wonder if we'll ever know all the totals, or if it'll be kept quiet like gulf I.

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." Re 13:11

Originally Posted By ARgue:
Secondly, why does that number seem a little high to you? Have you seen other reports? What gave you the impression that the death toll would be lower?
Thanks for helping me understand your logic/reasoning.

View Quote

Well, since you asked so nicely.
Vietnam war in 1969 the second deadliest year when it came to fighting.
There was an average of 11,000 NVA/VC deaths per month.
Now think about it, 11,000 die in a full scale war on many many fronts. Iraqi deaths total 3k in less than one month? We weren't even really kicking real ass(like we could have if we went all out) and with all the smart weapons we have that actually are supposed to cut down enemy deaths.
Thats why it seems a little high to me.

If I had to die so my children and grandchildren were free. Hey, I would do it. But, thats something DU trolls don't understand. It takes balls to make sacrifices for freedom. Not gun bans or "diplomatic talks" with other countries that do not ever want peace.

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Well, since you asked so nicely.
Vietnam war in 1969 the second deadliest year when it came to fighting.
There was an average of 11,000 NVA/VC deaths per month.
Now think about it, 11,000 die in a full scale war on many many fronts. Iraqi deaths total 3k in less than one month? We weren't even really kicking real ass(like we could have if we went all out) and with all the smart weapons we have that actually are supposed to cut down enemy deaths.
Thats why it seems a little high to me.

View Quote

When you talk about NVA/VC you're talking about enemy combat casualties, aren't you? This report is on civilian casualties, I would estimate that enemy combat deaths would be MUCH higher.

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Hey maybe you guys are right.
All I am saying is that number seems high to me. Just a hunch, 3 weeks isnt a long time and our air campaign wasn't long either.

View Quote

To be honest, I thought the number was rather high, too. I just wanted to clarify whether you were talking about military or civilian casualties. Although, now that I think about it, some of these "civilian" casualties could be the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing we heard so much about.

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
If I had to die so my children and grandchildren were free. Hey, I would do it.

View Quote

I totally agree with you there, 100%.
I'm sure they had their children and grandchildren's freedom in mind as they fought to defend themselves from foreign invaders.

View Quote

You're right. They were probably thinking "Gee, I may as well get killed cleanly by the Americans, because when the people of Iraq are liberated and find out about all the tens of thousands of people that I helped Saddam torture and murder, they'll rip me limb from limb."
Go back to DU, you freaking troll.

Once we have a war, there is only one thing left to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.---Ernest Hemingway

Actually, you're right. I'm not sure if the 3,000+ number is counting the people who were killed in their homes, huddled with their family, by bombs dropped from planes (shock and awe) or if they were actually fighting for their freedom. It's not clear.

Originally Posted By liberty86:
That's close to what we lost at WTC isn't it???

View Quote

Liberty86 raises a good point here.
3000+ innocent people, who were just minding their own business and hadn't done ANYTHING wrong, were murdered in NY/DC/PA.
3000+ innocent people, who were just minding their business and handn't done ANYTHING wrong, were murdered in Iraq.
It's sad, when you think about it.

Originally Posted By ARgue:
Actually, you're right. I'm not sure if the 3,000+ number is counting the people who were killed in their homes, huddled with their family, by bombs dropped from planes (shock and awe) or if they were actually fighting for their freedom. It's not clear.

M4_Aiming_at_U gave honest answers, with some solid reasoning. Why can't ya'll do the same, instead of crying "troll!" so damn quick?

Well, since you asked so nicely.
Vietnam war in 1969 the second deadliest year when it came to fighting.
There was an average of 11,000 NVA/VC deaths per month.
Now think about it, 11,000 die in a full scale war on many many fronts. Iraqi deaths total 3k in less than one month? We weren't even really kicking real ass(like we could have if we went all out) and with all the smart weapons we have that actually are supposed to cut down enemy deaths.
Thats why it seems a little high to me.

View Quote

&

If I had to die so my children and grandchildren were free. Hey, I would do it. But, thats something DU trolls don't understand. It takes balls to make sacrifices for freedom. Not gun bans or "diplomatic talks" with other countries that do not ever want peace.

3,240 civilian dead- is that all? And Saddam and his black shirts dead or out of power? Sounds like a good trade to me for the freedom of an entire people. Do you want some cheese to go with that whine, M'sieur?
They should be thankful we didn't carpet bomb or nuke the entire place....

piccolo's sister, on life in Massachusetts: "Yeah, it's great living here. You never have to grow up here. Everything is always someone else's fault."

Originally Posted By raven:
That's a slow month for Saddam Hussein, I'm sure.

View Quote

I didn't know we were competing with saddam.
Seriously though, he killed his own people right? Does that give us the right to go in and "liberate" their people? What if some other country saw the need to "liberate" us after Waco? Would that be right? I'm honestly trying to figure out the morals to this whole thing.
[b]NOT[/b] a [img]http://www.timewarp-toys.com/troll.jpg[/img]

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
3,240 civilian dead- is that all? And Saddam and his black shirts dead or out of power? Sounds like a good trade to me for the freedom of an entire people. Do you want some cheese to go with that whine, M'sieur?
They should be thankful we didn't carpet bomb or nuke the entire place....

View Quote

See, this is what I'm talking about.
On the one hand, it sounds like you've got noble intentions, and genuinely care about the welfare of the Iraqi people: "freedom of an entire people" but on the other hand, it seems like you wish we had just nuked 'em. Which one is it?
[edited to add: the "Do you want some cheese to go with that whine, M'sieur?" was pretty damn funny...[BD]]

Please explain which part is mindless, and which part bashes President Bush.
Have you been to [url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/politics.html]www.WhatReallyHappened.com[/url]? How does it give away my "real agenda?"

Another thing that makes me think the number are a little too high.
All that damn antiaircraft artillery that had going off all day and night throughout the cities, well the rounds had to come down back into the cities and kill all kinds of people.
I bet that made up for a lot of dead civies.

Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Although we disagree, I do appreciate your comment.

View Quote

Another thing that makes me think the number are a little too high.
All that damn antiaircraft artillery that had going off all day and night throughout the cities, well the rounds had to come down back into the cities and kill all kinds of people.
I bet that made up for a lot of dead civies.

View Quote

That's probably true, as well as their own friendly fire.
Earlier, you mentioned that 11,000 NVA/VC were killed every month in 1969. And the report states that 3,240 have been killed, so far, in Iraq. If you adjust those numbers to take the two country's populations into account, we killed roughly 2 Vietnamese for every 1 Iraqi killed:
40 million Vietnamese [url=http://www.osh.netnam.vn/html/ENGLISH/population.htm](1969 population)[/url] 0.000275% of population killed per month.
24 million Iraqis [url=http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html](2002 population)[/url] 0.000135% of population killed per month.
Not as bad as Vietnam, but pretty damn close. But that's still just based on the 3,000 number which is, IMHO, probably low-balling it. After all, WHY would the military stop doing body counts? According to your [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_counting_the_dead_7]article[/url], Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman, says, "...we never target civilians and have no reason to try to count such unintended deaths."
Ok... That means that either we [i]did[/i] target civilians in Vietnam [b]OR[/b] the millitary simply decided that body counts are too embarrassing, and they'd rather keep us in the dark about exactly how many people are being killed. Why would they do that? Well, what, if any, were the implications of having a daily body count on TV during the Vietnam War?
I think we can all agree that the .gov doesn't have the public interest in mind regarding the 2nd Amendment, so why give them the benefit of the doubt on any other issue? If they can show me some evidence and backup their policies (regardless of the issue), I'm game. However, if they're tryin to hide information from us and not telling the truth, I would have to be skeptical of what they (& the media and anyone else) have to say.

Wasn't trying to get into a Vietnam-based discussion, just replying to the original post. 3k dead Iraqi civvies? Yeah, that's high, I'd say inaccurate. Marc Herolds (sp?) site was running at about 1500 when the war ended, and he way over estimated Afghan civvie dead. Is 2 or 3 or 10k too many? No. How many died under Saddam in a year? Best estimates I've seen from State say around 2 to 3.5k. So in a year, we're even. My sympathys to those who lost thier lives, both under Saddam and from US bombing. At least those who died from us died for a constructive purpose.

3k does not surprise me at all.
Think of all the tons of bombs were droped. Think of the janitor and the people living next door.
Iraqi freedom or the ability to get cheap black was not worth American crimson or gold.

Originally Posted By fearlessrogue:
3k does not surprise me at all.
Think of all the tons of bombs were droped. Think of the janitor and the people living next door.
Iraqi freedom or the ability to get cheap black was not worth American crimson or gold.

Originally Posted By ARgue:
Actually, you're right. I'm not sure if the 3,000+ number is counting the people who were killed in their homes, huddled with their family, by bombs dropped from planes (shock and awe) or if they were actually fighting for their freedom. It's not clear.

View Quote

Given that no civilians lived in the areas that were bombed in Shock and Awe, you really sound like a moron.

Once we have a war, there is only one thing left to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.---Ernest Hemingway

Originally Posted By fearlessrogue:
3k does not surprise me at all.
Think of all the tons of bombs were droped. Think of the janitor and the people living next door.
Iraqi freedom or the ability to get cheap black was not worth American crimson or gold.

View Quote

I agree with that, 100%.

View Quote

Oh good. Then you can both split the rent in your fantasy world.

Once we have a war, there is only one thing left to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.---Ernest Hemingway

I think we should have killed a few more of them.
If we had, maybe they be a little less uppity NOW.
The Kurds fought well, and on the right side. Now they are benefiting from their proper behavior. The People of Karbala, Tikrit, and the other "pro-Saddam" cities, now find themselves in an uncomfortable position.
They allowed Saddam to remain in power.
They found out that's not a good thing.
You get the government you deserve. It is a reflection of the character of the people.
I shed no tears for the Iraqis.

Indeed[:)].
...and when their lack of courage creates a situation that puts OUR inerests in jeopary, I not only have no sympathy, I have animosity.
People forget, that MOST nations never had to fight for their liberty. Most former colonies (Canada, Australia, etc.)merely waited for their masters to become enlightened.
Other countries have to wait for THEIR masters to piss off the US.

Originally Posted By liberty86:
That's close to what we lost at WTC isn't it???

View Quote

Liberty86 raises a good point here.
3000+ innocent people, who were just minding their own business and hadn't done ANYTHING wrong, were murdered in NY/DC/PA.
3000+ innocent people, who were just minding their business and handn't done ANYTHING wrong, were murdered in Iraq.
It's sad, when you think about it.

View Quote

What the heck is so sad about it. The fact that 3k+ people died as a result of thier governments inaction and in ability to do whats best for the people. And as far as not doing anything wrong come on you and i know thats BS, because not every one of those "civilians" was a civilian. We have no idea and no one can PROVE that all 3k+ of those "civilians" were in fact civilians. How many were republican guard fighting in civilian cloths how many were the fedayeen(sp) paramilitary who were fighting in civilian cloths. You can't be sure what the hell happened, just like the AP can't because they were not there when each and everyone of those people were killed. How many were civilians forced to fight for the iraqi government and kia before they could gtfo. Are those civilians counted? they shouldn't be because they chose to pick up a gun, which made them no longer civilians, but combatants in saddams army. I think i'll stop now before i totaly go ballistic on the whole Iraq war subject.

I find that people who get overly "concerned" or weepy, over the fate of the Iraqi people, are usually full of shit.
Their mock concern is really just a ploy to score political points against America, and the Bush Administration.
Not a surprise, really.
ARgue and his ilk's main concern is their hatred and obsession with Bush.
Just look at the website in his signature.
It started with the 2000 Election, and it now manifests itself in their anti-war rhetoric.
It's all misguided.
He and they are so caught up in searching for a scandal, to nail to Bush, that they allow themselves to believe even the most far-fetched lies -as long as those lies are anit-Bush.
When each of these lies gets debunked, there's no apologies, they just "Move On", ever searching for the next bit of dirt. Along the way their credibility vanishes, and it becomes obvious to anyone outside their little circle of bile, that they have very little in common with the truth.
They used to make fun of all the rabid "Clinton Haters" in the nineties.
Well, look in the mirror ARgue.

There is a real good reason for the numbers, and they seem to be allot lower than I would have anticipated. When ever we took fire it was normally from a non-uniformed para-military in the middle of a crowd of civilians or house with civilians in it, we shot back and some times, often, more than just the shooter was hit. You really cannot help it, trying to hit single targets from moving platforms is about impossible.

Originally Posted By STLRN:
There is a real good reason for the numbers, and they seem to be allot lower than I would have anticipated. When ever we took fire it was normally from a non-uniformed para-military in the middle of a crowd of civilians or house with civilians in it, we shot back and some times, often, more than just the shooter was hit. You really cannot help it, trying to hit single targets from moving platforms is about impossible.

View Quote

Welcome home, Marine. Job well done. Glad to see you in one piece.

Once we have a war, there is only one thing left to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.---Ernest Hemingway

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I find that people who get overly "concerned" or weepy, over the fate of the Iraqi people, are usually full of shit.
Their mock concern is really just a ploy to score political points against America, and the Bush Administration.
Not a surprise, really.
ARgue and his ilk's main concern is their hatred and obsession with Bush.
Just look at the website in his signature.
It started with the 2000 Election, and it now manifests itself in their anti-war rhetoric.
It's all misguided.
He and they are so caught up in searching for a scandal, to nail to Bush, that they allow themselves to believe even the most far-fetched lies -as long as those lies are anit-Bush.
When each of these lies gets debunked, there's no apologies, they just "Move On", ever searching for the next bit of dirt. Along the way their credibility vanishes, and it becomes obvious to anyone outside their little circle of bile, that they have very little in common with the truth.
They used to make fun of all the rabid "Clinton Haters" in the nineties.
Well, look in the mirror ARgue.

View Quote

Wrong again, Cincinnatus!
Mattsd tried to accuse me and the website, whatreallyhappened.com, of the same thing, and I simply asked him to show me where or how anything I've posted is against President Bush. I haven't heard from him since.

Cincinnatus ignorantly stated:
Just look at the website in his signature.
It started with the 2000 Election, and it now manifests itself in their anti-war rhetoric.

View Quote

READ my posts & links before you spout your crap, and maybe you won't end up looking like such a fool. Here's the URL of the link that can be found in my response to Mattsd:
[url]www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/politics.html[/url]
Give it a looksee before you respond.

Originally Posted By ARgue:

Originally Posted By mattsd:

Originally Posted By ARgue:
I'm honestly trying to figure out the morals to this whole thing.

Please explain which part is mindless, and which part bashes President Bush.
Have you been to [url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/politics.html]www.WhatReallyHappened.com[/url]? How does it give away my "real agenda?"

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I find that people who get overly "concerned" or weepy, over the fate of the Iraqi people, are usually full of shit.
Their mock concern is really just a ploy to score political points against America, and the Bush Administration.
Not a surprise, really.
ARgue and his ilk's main concern is their hatred and obsession with Bush.
Just look at the website in his signature.
It started with the 2000 Election, and it now manifests itself in their anti-war rhetoric.
It's all misguided.
He and they are so caught up in searching for a scandal, to nail to Bush, that they allow themselves to believe even the most far-fetched lies -as long as those lies are anit-Bush.
When each of these lies gets debunked, there's no apologies, they just "Move On", ever searching for the next bit of dirt. Along the way their credibility vanishes, and it becomes obvious to anyone outside their little circle of bile, that they have very little in common with the truth.
They used to make fun of all the rabid "Clinton Haters" in the nineties.
Well, look in the mirror ARgue.

View Quote

Wrong again, Cincinnatus!
Mattsd tried to accuse me and the website, whatreallyhappened.com, of the same thing, and I simply asked him to show me where or how anything I've posted is against President Bush. I haven't heard from him since.

View Quote

He, like I probably doesn't really care that much. It's as though you ask us to "prove" the sky is blue.
Well it is.
And just as the sky is blue, you are what YOU are.
"www.whatreallyhappened.com"????
Who are you kidding?
Not me.
Not anyone.
Maybe yourself.

Originally Posted By ARgue:
Wrong again, Cincinnatus!
Mattsd tried to accuse me and the website, whatreallyhappened.com, of the same thing, and I simply asked him to show me where or how anything I've posted is against President Bush. I haven't heard from him since.

View Quote

darn it, i said all that KNOWING that website was an unbias, totally unslanted common sense veiw of politics and just hoping you wouldn't call me on it.

Cincinnatus & Mattsd,
I don't want to take this thread too far off course, but you're accusing me of being "anti-bush," which I consider name-calling, without showing me where or how anything I've posted is against President Bush. Of my 14 posts in this thread, surely you can find at least ONE "anti-bush" statement. If not, you've shown yourself to be full of sh!t.
"Waaaaaa, you're anti-bush, cause.. cause.. because I say you are, damnit!!" [baby]
[nono]

Look, we all see you for what you are.
You want us to prove it?
No.
No need.
Trolls come in many different stripes.
Your brand of trolling is not uncommon, and has been quickly recognized and labelled.
Let's just call you the Sincere Gun Enthusiast Troll With Trite Leftist Sympathies.
A quick scan of your previous posts and threads reveals a sympathy and enthusiasm for topics and issues usually supported by DU types (and by DU, I'm not referring to Depleted Uranium -an issue close and dear to your heart).
You are who you are, and we are aware.
So what?